User blog comment:JayAaerow/Weapons Infobox/@comment-1164563-20141215210631

I tried to raise the topic of creating (updating, as wiki had this back then) a similar template once. Showing that exact discussion might prove to be difficult, but to my memory, KrytenKoro just explained to me that it is basically a useless thing and I conceded. We used only pictures since then, with all other important stuff being in the beginning of the article. But okay, let's see what you have.

Type - you mean, sword/gun/guitar thing? Dunno. Some weapons in DMC franchise just defy all attempts at short descriptions, and is better worded into the beginning of the article than into an infobox. Besides, in the cases where you CAN tell the weapon type you can easily do that from the picture.

Creator? Are you kidding me? Is there a single weapon in DMC, other than arguably canon origin of E&I and possibly Sparda that has a stated "creator"? Legion is right, if this stays it should be the "drops from" sort of line.

User(s), except for somewhat rare exceptions, is always Dante. Also, the user is always stated in the first sentence of the article anyway.

Element is very arguable. Not all weapons have a stated element... Actually, most weapons don't even have a visible one, even some of demonic ones.

Verdict: I still agree with KK's ruling, for most part. Most of those fields are either inapplicable to DMC or redundant (as in case of User/Appearances/Drops From) to the article's intro. The only indispensably useful part of this template are the picture tabs, and it is not even applicable to most weapons. But, I guess, it is not like I am a person of note here anymore, so do whatever.